Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA

Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA. Yes you read that right. Somebody at NASA can’t even figure out which solar cycle they are talking about. Or, as commenters to the thread have pointed out, perhaps they see that cycle 24 has been skipped. We’ll be watching this one to see the outcome. – Anthony

nasa-solar-cycle-help

Above: Help for NASA editors

Michael Ronanye writes in comments:

NASA has just changed the name of the project from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24. I would love to have attended that meeting.

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24

Clarified March 10, 2009: All references to “Solar Cycle 23″ have been updated to “Solar Cycle 24.” Reference in Section 1 to “Solar Cycle 22″ has been updated to “Solar Cycle 23.”

See the changed text here:

Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC_clarified.pdf

Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!

But it gets even better. NASA has just declared that Solar Cycle 24 is over. Read the first paragraph in the above PDF:

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment.

Obviously someone made an error when editing the text of the original document and did not catch their mistake. Quick, make your own backup copy of this “Great Moment in Science”.

Advertisements

184 thoughts on “Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA

  1. Extending the pattern of updating specified in the pdf suggests that all references to Solar Cycle 24 should be updated to Solar Cycle 25, so it is Solar Cycle 25 that they say is coming to an end. LOL.

  2. The amazing thing is that this is a change of over 3 years from the minimum “predicted” in March 2006 to today.
    I don’t blame them for getting it wrong. But their model, obviously, has nothing to do with reality (I could go OT here, but won’t).
    What I’m interested in now is how closely we are following the cycle 10-15 plots. Any links?

  3. Don’t be too hasty here. Maybe they know what they’re talking about.
    They might have determined that the weak Cycle 24 spots we’ve seen were all that 24 could muster, and that the ‘Cycle 23’ spots we’re occasionally spotting are really cycle 25.
    I await Leif’s comments with interest.
    (And yes, I’m joking.)

  4. Definitely Freudian, but bless ’em! Anybody can make mistakes.
    It does seem they’re genuinely excited about studying the sun in its current state – and that’s a good thing, IMHO.

  5. This has something to do with daylight savings time, I think. Someone told them they were supposed to set your clocks forward and they heard set your “cycles” forward. So we lose a cycle, what the heck, we will get it back when we fall back in the fall.

  6. Backed up. I back up every document on science and politics as PDF files for my own reference and in case any media outlet or org thinks they can conveniently erase something they once said. 😉

  7. Looks like Hathaway & co way off the mark as continuously asserted by all and sundry here. David Archibald was after all right….

  8. NASA grew increasingly embarrassed at it’s inability to forecast so they simply decided to end SC 23… LOL I’d bet another sunspot from SC 23 will pop up to confound them… 🙂

  9. I guess we all have our senior moments 😉
    It is sure embarrassing when they happen in public or in publication.

  10. Hmmm… How many Cycle 23 and how many Cycle 24 spots have we had in the past month or two? Cycle 23: “The Sunspot Cycle That Would Not Die”

  11. ☺☺☺
    1984 George Orwell, Part 1, Chapter 4.
    Substitute “Solar Cycle 23” for “Withers”
    [Start quote.] “The reporting of Big Brother’s Order for the Day in The Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes references to non-existent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing.”
    Winston read through the offending article. Big Brother’s Order for the Day, it seemed, had been chiefly devoted to praising the work of an organization known as FFCC, … Three months later FFCC had suddenly been dissolved with no reasons given. One could assume that Withers and his associates were now in disgrace, … Winston did not know why Withers had been disgraced. Perhaps it was for corruption or incompetence. Perhaps Big Brother was merely getting rid of a too-popular subordinate. Perhaps Withers or someone close to him had been suspected of heretical tendencies. Or perhaps — what was likeliest of all — the thing had simply happened because purges and vaporizations were a necessary part of the mechanics of government. The only real clue lay in the words ‘refs unpersons’, which indicated that Withers was already dead. Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed.. [End quote.]

  12. I’m aware that the cycles overlap and that the exact point of transition is often determined with hindsight after the event.
    What surprises me is that up to now the suggestions have been that cycle 23 (not 24) ended a few months ago when we started getting a few weak cycle 24 spots yet that meeting seems to have decided that the actual point of transition is around now.
    How do they know ? Why the change ?
    Others are sure that the point of transition cannot yet be determined.

  13. LOL, how embarassing. But NASA folks must be getting used to being embarassed, and they don’t have to worry about any consequences, so what the hey?

  14. I definitely don’t think that NASA can be good at everything. In fact, what are they really good at? Their probe and rocket launch stats are not that great. Their understanding of nature, desastrous, what else? The solar prediction is all screwed up… we are still seeing more spots from SC23 than SC24, or at least as many in the best case. How much money are they getting to develop and support bad science?

  15. “Obviously someone made an error “when edition the text” of the original document and did not catch their mistake. Quick, make your own backup copy of this “Great Moment in Science”.”
    How about “when editing the text”… never try to catch a falling mistake… LOL

  16. quick, someone needs to edit the last sentence of your post ;o)

    REPLY:
    I fixed Mike’s text. Thanks, – Anthony

  17. [Start quote.] “The reporting of Big Brother’s Order for the Day in The Times of December 3rd 1983 is double plus ungood and makes references to non-existent persons. Rectify in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing.”

  18. Oh good, I have been waiting for this Solar Cycle minimum to end so that I can start looking forward to warmer weather again. It’s been in the -30s C. for the past 4 days and we would all appreciate a return to normal seasonal temperatures. I just hope someone passes this information onto the sun.

  19. Thanks Antonio, I am a graduate of the Jacksonian School of spelling!
    Mike
    It’s a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
    President Andrew Jackson

  20. It’s not a mistake. NASA public relations is captured by the AGW movement, and it’s their job to obfuscate the solar cycle – climate causality. They’ll do it in more ways than just making silly SC24 predictions. Here it’s publishing erroneous articles. They’ll be plenty more ways.
    The old veil of bumbling incompetence over what is really strategic falsity.

  21. We mustn’t blame NASA. Sure, they have a lot of rockets blow up, like the one a week or so ago, but it isn’t their fault. Global Warming makes the rocket components overheat.
    This particular error was also caused by Global Warming. Circuits in their computers have been fried by higher temperatures than they were designed to handle, again, the fault of Global Warming.
    We can’t blame them for confusing information about basic facts, as about what Solar Cycle we’re in. They are doing the best they can, struggling with the high temperatures of the past couple of years even as they turn down their air conditioners to make things better.
    Don’t believe it when critics say that NASA people are dumb or lying. They are just overheated.

  22. Must have been the negative feedback.
    Climate dyslexia seems to be reigning supreme these days.

  23. Careful, now. That may not be an error. We don’t know what they meant if they didn’t come right out and define precisely. They may know something we don’t, like a clue that SC24 has met an untimely death, as in the skipped cycle that Adolfo referenced above.
    Could mean that they see L&P projection as snuffing out SC24 to a shoulder of a ramp, or it could be a typo.
    Lost cycle or bum cycle or phantom cycle, do we really know?

  24. Never has the phrase :”Good enough for government work!” been more true….
    from the swamp…cdl

  25. “”” DR (08:27:51) :
    For those interested, Scafetta and Willson have published a new paper on TSI in direct conflict with those claiming changes in TSI cannot account for late 20th century warming, i.e. the sun is basically an incandescent light bulb in the sky. “””
    DR, I don’t even have a problem with the concept of the sun being just an incandescent light bulb in the sky. BUT ! So long as the lightbulb exhibits the same sort of magnetic field variations that the sun exhibits, as well as that shockwave mantle, I don’t care if TSI doesn’t change one iota; it’s the magnetism changes, and what that does to the charged particle/cosmic rays arriving at earth (and where they get steered to) that I look to for a direct solar/climate link.
    In fact I’m getting really tired of hearing the mantra that the TSI only changes a tenth of a percent over a sunspot cycle, in dismissing the sun’s influence. That just indicates to me that the comment comes from someone who isn’t thinking this whole thing through.
    The exact details of Svensmark’s thesis on cosmic ray influence, may be up for discussion; but I can’t see how the whole concept can be simply dismissed.
    When people are talking about hundredths of a degree change, in something that is nothing more than a manufactured climate datum (say GISStemp), and trying to bestow some scientific significance to that; it is just plain silly to ignore the clearly demonstrated solar effect on cosmic and charged solar particles.
    George

  26. We need clarifying this.
    Usokin:”Based on a re-analysis of
    available sunspot data, we have suggested that solar
    cycle #4 is in fact a superposition of two cycles: a
    normal cycle in 1784-1793 ending at the start of the
    Dalton minimum, and a new weak cycle in 1793-1800
    which was the first cycle within the Dalton minimum.”

  27. They must use the same proof reader that the State Department uses for English to Russian translations.

  28. It appears that they had moved the goal posts as far as they could so now they are moving the whole stadium. Or perhaps the research funding for Cycle 24 has already run out and they now need to fund research into “Cycle 25.”

  29. I may or may not have said this before,, but I just cant help thinking that this has something to do with the whole enigmatic mystery that surrounds “the number 23”!! 😉

  30. Cycle 23: “The Sunspot Cycle That Would Not Die”
    To be followed by the Sunspot Cycle That Would Not Live?

  31. I’ve always felt that cycle 24 was the second peak in the curve of what we refer to as cycle 23. The next cycle that comes along should be cycle 25 sometime in the year 2023.
    It’s going to be a long, cold decade for the AGW crowd.

  32. I’ve noticed that the solar flux (as reported at http://www.solarcycle24.com) has been steadily ticking up since reaching a minimum in July. It isn’t clear to me whether the “observed” solar flux that underlies that trend is adjusted for distance from the sun (aphelion/perihelion effects) or not. The minimum in July does correspond with aphelion, but it seems strange to use unadjusted numbers.
    If the reported numbers are not adjusted, we’ll probably see them start trending down again now (perihelion was January 4th), and the slight trend upward indicates nothing more than a steady minimum with decreasing distance from the sun. If they are adjusted, however, the trend may mean that we are, in fact, slowly ramping up to cycle 24, with sunspots a more variable indicator.

  33. This is what NASA says (in the posted link above):
    “Causes – Solar output
    Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
    Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
    Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
    Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23;
    Effectively no sunspots;
    The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
    Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
    Consequences
    With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
    Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
    Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.”

  34. George E. Smith
    I agree with you. The point is the debate on TSI being “settled” plus ignoring of all evidence of the sun’s indirect effects.

  35. Wow.
    I decided to check out Watt’s up for the first time recently, to evaluate the quality of “skeptics” arguments.
    A whole post, and dozens of comments, about a typo.
    Fortunately, in my field, when I make a typo (or other trivial mistake), we correct it and move on. Nobody writes up a multi-paragraph memo, or saves a copy in case I later deny I made the typo, or posts references to Orwell because they are convinced that I will subsequently pretend the typo never happened.
    I am very glad that my work does not generate the reaction that scientists working on global warming must endure. If it did, I would be far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done.
    REPLY: Well then if you evaluate the whole blog based on one story, then you would be guilty of using a single data point to determine your opinion. The fare has been rather light on science the last few days because I’ve been traveling. Mostly I posted this because it was funny, not that it was relevant, unless of course they authors have decided that we have indeed skipped cycle 24…then it is hugely relevant. Stick around to find out the answer. – Anthony Watts

  36. The main text says:

    Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!

    Predications? I knew they had trouble with predictions, but I have no idea of what a Freudian predicate is. I’m not sure I want to know….

  37. for what it’s worth…it looks like you misspelled “predictions”
    “Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!”
    REPLY: See the definition of the word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predication
    I don’t know if Mike meant to use that word or not, but it could also fit in the context. – Anthony

  38. If we actually went through a double peaked cycle, no wonder it has been warmer than usual. So, that means that we should disregard or maybe decouple the warming and solar activity to see how much degrees the planet should have warmed up if we had had a normal cycle. In such case, maybe there was no global warming and that is was just exceptional and could only happen again in 150 years or so.

  39. “I am very glad that my work does not generate the reaction that scientists working on global warming must endure. If it did, I would be far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done.”
    I would be very happy if the current crop of scientists working on global warming were far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done. They’ve done far too much damage already.
    Mike Bryant

  40. Well then if you evaluate the whole blog based on one story, then you would be guilty of using a single data point to determine your opinion.

    You’re right, it would be unfair to evaluate the whole blog based on a typo. I should also have included the following in my evaluation
    -A major error in a headline “Global warming linked to gravity.” The story discusses how sea levels are linked to gravity (imagine that!). Global warming and rising seas to have a causal relationship, but it is ridiculous to confuse them.
    -A discussion of US temperature trends which no where addresses the obvious question of whether the US is anomalous. That is, what was the world doing at the same time? (Also, what was the US doing over the last decade?)
    -A long analysis of a statement made by John Sununu paraphrased (or quoted) as “John Nature will respond to climate change in the future in a self-stabilising way, as it always has in the past.” The statement does not mention that this quote (or paraphrase) is quite obviously false. Climate does not “always” respond in a self-stabilizing way. In the PETM it responded in a highly unstabilizing way resulting in the extinction of most life on earth. Lots of other examples like that.
    So, on the front page, you have a major error, a cherry-picked example, and a non-critical quotation of a major error.
    Again, Wow.
    REPLY:
    1. Nothing wrong with the title. The news story talked about melting ice which would be due to “global warming” then comes the discussion on gravity. The linkage is that gravity anomaly will affect global warming caused sea level rise. Relevant text from the article: “As ice thaws, Antarctica would get smaller and its gravitational tug would diminish.” I’m sorry you don’t like the title but your complaint is just a matter of opinion. If you knew anything about the media business, you’d understand headlines better.
    2. “A discussion of US temperature trends which no where addresses the obvious question of whether the US is anomalous.” I posted the press release verbatum from NOAA. Regarding your wanting an issue being addressed: that is what our comments section is for. The fact that you don’t see what you expect to see there isn’t a fault of the blog, but that is where you can participate. If you choose not to, don’t ridicule others for not doing so.
    3. “A long analysis of a statement made by John Sununu” Again, from another source, Dr. Bob Carter, which I posted in entirety. Again thats what comments are for.
    You keep saying how bad this blog is, but you just want to bash and run. That’s OK, we have a few that do that and perhaps that best suits you, but I encourage discussion. You seem to focus on single points. I assure you that your will not find perfection on this blog or any other. But if you don’t wish to engage in conversation, thanks for stopping by with your points of opinion. – Anthony

  41. skeptic (11:18:35) :
    I am very glad that my work does not generate the reaction that scientists working on global warming must endure. If it did, I would be far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done.
    Be very sure that if your work had the potential to generate billions in taxes that it would get the same scrutiny climate related stuff gets.


  42. I found it to be a delightfully funny diversion. We can’t be arguing all the time, can we? All arguments and no fun makes “skeptic” a dull person.
    It brightened my day enough to make me risk messing up my first attempt at a blockquote. Now for the risk (click).

  43. I just checked Oulu neutron count.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    From what I can see the neutron count is still increasing and set an all time high in the last days as a response of the weak solar magnetic field and remarkably long solar minimum.
    You can generate a chart at the botom of the page ranging from 1964 to present.
    So if Svensmarks theory is correct we should start to see a slight increase of global cloud cover which could cause cooling.
    Is there any site meassuring global cloud cover that has data available on the web?
    It looks like this solar minimum and next 2 cycles really are going to reveal what is the major driver on our climate, CO2, natural variations(on earth) or the sun.

  44. I see people talking about something to do with cycle 25 starting… I am not sure if they are joking or not (hopefully they are) because according to sunspot record these so called cycle 25 spots would have to be appearing at the poles NOT the equator, as all these “special” spots have been. therefore they are in fact cycle 23 spots to my knowledge… data shows that new cycle spots appear at high latitudes as cycle 24 spots have been, not near the equator!! This may seem obvious to most but some of these comments do worry me!
    lol

  45. An honest mistake in the normally strictly QC’d output from NASA
    Nothing to see here, move along, move along…

  46. Alex – but how could they explain that every single sunspot has only lasted for less than 24 hours? Shouldn’t a new sclae be used instead based on the area and lifetime of sunspots give us more information than just a number?

  47. You seem to focus on single points

    Four out of the five top posts had a) a major error (either made by the author or quoted uncritically) b) were a clear example of cherry-picking data to support a hypothesis, or c) (one case) were solely about a typo. Five posts, four “single points.”
    (BTW, another name for my writing technique is “backing up an assertion with evidence.”)
    So it seems fairly clear that your blog achieves nowhere near the standards for accuracy that you hold your opponents to. That’s fine– there are no laws that say you have to be accurate– but it means you shouldn’t expect anyone to take you as seriously as we do those you cover.
    [Finally, its interesting that your and other responses focus on me personally. I am told I don’t know anything about the media business and am a dull person. While I don’t particularly care about your opinion of me, its fascinating to see how early you employ ad hominen attacks against some stranger you’ve never met.]

  48. 1)

    talked about melting ice which would be due to “global warming” then comes the discussion on gravity

    I love the quotes! That’s true, but “melting ice” is not the same as “global warming.” Usually “stories” headlines are “related” to whatever the “story” is “about.”
    2)

    The fact that you don’t see what you expect to see there

    Well, its kind of an obvious point. But, out of curiosity, how many times have you reported on heat-waves? How many times on cold or normal temperatures? That’s what’s meant by cherry-picking.
    3)

    Again, from another source, Dr. Bob Carter, which I posted in entirety

    OK, so your source (or Mr. Sununu) is completely ignorant. I wonder, how often have you posted comments from the mainstream scientific community which suggest that the effects of global warming will be horrific? And when you do, do you simply post them without any commentary?
    REPLY: Given that you’ve just called both Dr. Carter and Mr. Sunnunu “completely ignorant” right after complaining in a previous post that you are the victim of an ad hom because I suggested that you might not undestand how media headlines are written, I have resigned myself to it. It wouldn’t matter what I say or didn’t say. You’d have a problem with it. I will say this. Both Dr. Carter and Mr. Sunnunu, whether you agree with them or not, have the courage to stand up and say what they know and believe in, and to put their name to it. You on the other hand, as an anonymous coward, have not that courage, and hide behind a made up name while passing judgment on everyone here. So many like yourself and come here and say similar things that you have are similarly cowardly. I’ve explained my position, and you respond by denigrating Mr. Sunnunu.
    Not nice, not rational, but certainly expected. Don’t bother to respond, I have no further interest. So off to the troll bin for you. – Anthony

  49. George E. Smith (09:28:24) :
    “When people are talking about hundredths of a degree change, in something that is nothing more than a manufactured climate datum (say GISStemp), and trying to bestow some scientific significance to that; it is just plain silly to ignore the clearly demonstrated solar effect on cosmic and charged solar particles.”
    As usual George your spot on.
    How many times have I seen/read climatic averages calculated to the n th decimal place which are then used to give trends of +0.00 …. something!! Yes you are right this is about trying to bestow some scientific significance on something which can be explained by some other well known effect.
    CO2 is measured in millionths and CH4 is measured in billionths.
    Yet a trend can be obtained about their varying atmospheric amounts and the media can have a field day.
    Are there really trends or is it human imagination?
    Which reminds me of the work done by James Hutton in his “The Theory of the Earth”. All his work was based upon what he observed and what were established demonstrated facts. He made it clear that human imagination must not be allowed to change known facts.
    And that was during the Scottish Enlightenment in the mid 1700’s.
    Today any modern James Hutton would use a computer to calculate trends in “fluor” and show that these trends have a negative aqueous trend. Where as simple observation would show that fluor/fluorspar is not soluble in water.
    Your correct “it is just plain silly to ignore the clearly demonstrated …. effect”.

  50. Jerker Andersson
    Chicago – for more than a year, they have set a number of cloudy day records. On the web? I doubt it.

  51. Adolfo Giurfa (11:26:25) :
    Then, when did cycle 24 really begin?
    Probably Oct. ’08, but it could take a while before they know for sure, possibly even two years.
    skeptic (11:18:35)
    Wow.
    I decided to check out Watt’s up for the first time recently, to evaluate the quality of “skeptics” arguments.
    A whole post, and dozens of comments, about a typo.

    Not just any typo, “skeptic”, but it encompasses the title and the entire subject of the PDF, which is pretty funny when you think about it – oh, wait, you AGWers have no sense of humor, that’s right. Never mind.
    Hint: try another thread if this particular one displeases you. You might find one that lives up to your obviously high standards.

  52. Adolfo Giurfa (08:15:31) :
    “Usokin on the last LOST CYCLE:
    http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf

    This piece is for me very interesting. Normaly we see a good correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. but then it seemed to me that the cooling of DALTON MINIMUM just started a little early. I have asked here at WUWT howcome this could be, and i actually got the answer that it was because that the solar activity did not have much influence on temperatures… Despite all the superpe correlations in general.
    But then comes this writing and it appears, that the reason for this “late low solar activity of the Dalton minimum” might be caused by wrong interpretations of data? That definetely makes things match better, thanks for link.

  53. B Kerr said:

    CO2 is measured in millionths and CH4 is measured in billionths.
    Yet a trend can be obtained about their varying atmospheric amounts and the media can have a field day.

    I think the first of these is measured in parts per million and currently stands at around 380, so that would be measured in the 10,000s, not millionths.

  54. Richard Sharpe (13:19:18) :
    I think the first of these is measured in parts per million and currently stands at around 380, so that would be measured in the 10,000s, not millionths.

    Richard, I am a little mathematically challenged, could you help me out here? Does not 380 “parts per million” mean 380 millionths? If not, why not? Please explain…

  55. Richard Sharpe (13:19:18) three point eight 10,000ths seems like a peculiar nomenclature for 380 millionths

  56. Richard Sharpe (13:19:18) :
    “measured in parts per million and currently stands at around 380, so that would be measured in the 10,000s”
    So CO2 should be measured in pptt?
    When my car is MOTed I get a CO2 readout showing how many millionths, which usually says trace.
    CO2 is currently 387 ppm.
    I am sure the “m” stands for million.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
    But at the end of the day it just shows how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere.

  57. Skeptic, you should have visited earlier as there were posts about the Australian fires that were very interesting indeed.
    But if you are looking for gems such as this documented, precise, insightful prediction from David Karoly, Professor of Meteorology at U of Melbourne “An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050.”, only realscientists can deliver them!

  58. Mr./Ms. Skeptic,
    I am very much a climate science laymen and in particular a solar science laymen, and I very much appreciate the discussions that take place in the various threads of this blog. You seem to be a very condescending type of individual, perhaps a bit narcissistic as well. I respect others that acknowledge their own ignorance and who show an interest in learning from others. You clearly are not one of these individuals. I find this blog extremely valuable for the development of my own knowledge and would respectfully ask that you refrain from blind attacks and instead contribute thoughtful discussion. Perhaps there is something that I can learn from you? Thus far your expressions are precisely those I work to avoid (a primary reason I read this blog as opposed to others), as they have nothing to contribute to intellectual conversation. Perhaps “discussion” is precisely the talent you lack?

  59. Mr. Scharpe is not so sharp. You said the same thing two ways. 380 millionths is the same as 3.8 ten thousandths. Measure it any way you wish, it is the same thing. You seem to agree. “I think the first of these is measured in parts per million” So, what exactly is your point?

  60. 385 pp million = 0.385 pp thousand = 0.0385 pp hundred = 0.0385% by volume (not weight).
    Water vapor varies between 0 and 4% – reducing vertically through the troposphere and laterally towards the poles.

  61. Details, details, details…
    This’ll probably get ’em a few million more $$ in funding. In business, you screw up you may find your department’s funding cut; only in government will screw ups result in additional funding.
    Besides, we know what they really meant to say, even if they don’t…

  62. skeptic (11:18:35) :

    Wow.
    I decided to check out Watt’s up for the first time recently, to evaluate the quality of “skeptics” arguments.
    A whole post, and dozens of comments, about a typo.
    Fortunately, in my field, when I make a typo (or other trivial mistake), we correct it and move on. Nobody writes up a multi-paragraph memo, or saves a copy in case I later deny I made the typo, or posts references to Orwell because they are convinced that I will subsequently pretend the typo never happened.

    Submitted under Categories : Science, fun_stuff, ridiculae, solar
    Please don’t let us hold you up from attending your next protest meeting. The planet needs you.

  63. October 2008 temp data pathetically wrong, unacceptably wrong. Now this “typo”.
    WTF! excuse my language.
    But,
    WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON???

  64. who knows, maybe NASA did it on purpose to see what the reaction at WUWT would be.
    Here’s one commenters reaction :
    WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP EMBARRASSING AMERICA IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD!!
    Please go back to the NASA that made the world stand still.

  65. “red432 (16:24:25) :
    Does a missed cycle mean the sun might be pregnant?”
    This caused the best laugh I’ve had in a long time. Thanks red!

  66. To me, the content of your post seems to be like a scientific version of astrology. I’m not a friend of fortune-tellers but I liked it. Just thinking to publish that image in my own blog.
    Best regards!

  67. 380 ppm is nothing to worry about. A working limit of 5000ppm for a 40 hour week, industry standard. Have worked in 1000-2000 ppm atmospheres and above.
    Nothing to report, you can’t tell.
    Someone posted on SolarCycle24 dot com that the report of a cancelled SC24 was a hoax site.
    No need to needle NASA.
    Just cancel AGW and Cap & Trade.
    Create a new industry that manufactures particulate, S02 and Mercury emission add-on scrubbers for power plants.
    Let the plants eat the C02. -burp-.

  68. Skeptic’s participation could be incredibly valuable to the discussion here. Perhaps he/she could break with the usual AGW crowd and inform us of a metric that would disprove a connection between human emission of a portion of atmospheric CO2 and catastrophic warming. Or, perhaps he/she could point us to the research demonstrating why the Sahara Desert was a grassland during the Holocene Optimum instead of a desert (and, to the same end, why a warmer Earth would not be characterized by fewer droughts). Skeptic seems willing to converse, and if he/she would advance a position in either of these respects, it might incite considerable productive exchange throughout whatever Solar Cycle we find ourselves in.

  69. Jerker Andersson (12:01:04) :
    You can generate a chart at the botom of the page ranging from 1964 to present.
    If you create an Oulu graph from 1964 to now, it looks to show that we have broken through the so called solar floor?

  70. Nasa needs to redo the heading completely…it doesnt make sense. Perhaps it should read:
    CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE GRAND MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24

  71. NASA duely deemed the revisions between solar cycles. This has no connection with reality, truth or science. NASA is now official spokesman for the Ministry of Truth.

  72. As I choke down past words!!! LOL
    http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf
    Standard numbering New numbering
    # min max # min max
    4 1784.3 1788.4 3’ 1784.3 1788.4
    1793.1¤ 4′ 1795¤
    5 1798.7 1802 5 1799.8¤ 1802.5¤
    6 1810.8 1817.1 6 1810.8 1817.1
    7 1823 1829.6 7 1823 1829.6
    Leif?
    You said ” short cycles = less TSI” and I said ” long cycles were cooler”
    Cough, cough, choke, err uhm swallowing hard… LOL
    I hate it when I am WRONG! bangs head on table…..
    That then means this cycle 24 might be 3-5 years… getting VERY interesting indeed!
    Thank You Leif
    much humbled Tim

  73. The F 10.7 flux was 71 recently, now 69. Is 68 possible? Or all the way back to 65?
    The minimum is not necessarily in yet. The rise over the last six months may have been largely orbital.

  74. It’s epidemic I say! Lost sea ice. Lost satellite! Lost Global Warming. Now we have lost a Sun cycle! Where are my keys!?!?!?!?!

  75. WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON???
    They’ve switched to trying to put a man on the sun.

  76. The sun is dead
    The sun has taken you to fantasy
    That distant star
    Came up to the point of tragedy

  77. Should scientists not help the policy makers consider alternative scenarios and thus force them to address preparations for alternative paths. Anytime politicians place all our eggs in the warming basket, one must be concerned. Should not NASA and NOAA consider the implications of lower solar output and the implications to food crops, energy needs, civil unrest…………… Implications of continued lower solar output needs to be seriously considered.

  78. “WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON???
    They’ve switched to trying to put a man on the sun.”
    You have to go at night.

  79. The subdued sun is heading back to aphelion from perihelion. Pity the poor southern hemispherians and their impending winter.
    Please forgive me for “skeptic.” We forgot to lock the door of the asylum after visitor’s hours. He must have snuck out for a night of trolling. So sorry.

  80. skeptic (11:52:04) :
    Nature will respond to climate change in the future in a self-stabilising way, as it always has in the past.” The statement does not mention that this quote (or paraphrase) is quite obviously false. Climate does not “always” respond in a self-stabilizing way. In the PETM it responded in a highly unstabilizing way resulting in the extinction of most life on earth.
    If it was not for PETM evolutionary bifurcation we would not be here discussing this.
    The overall effect of life has been to cool our planet from long-term increase
    in solar radiation eg (Schwartzmann 1999).
    http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/faintearthparadox.jpg

  81. Al Fin (20:30:21) wrote: “Pity the poor southern hemispherians and their impending winter.”
    Save your pity, Al. In Victoria, Australia, I’m sweating on it. The current restricted global warming here is sending me loco. Let it winter hard as it wants, I’ll be like Scrooge McDuck in his money pile… although I acknowledge winter here does not mean ice.

  82. If this is a typo then it is a case of careless that it happened. If the GISS Oct. 2008 data set was an oversight (?) then that is even worse carelessness.
    The hare got careless too. The tortoise won.

  83. “Anthropogenic Solar Chaos (20:05:25) : …Implications of continued lower solar output needs to be seriously considered.”
    I agree. But Al Gore has snuffed that out. As Willie Soon said, (para) we need to work to save the earth from Al Gore.

  84. No DR, Leif Svalgaard
    The quiet is stunning!
    All of his links show we are within normal deviations of a normal cycle….. BUT, what if this is NOT,,,, a “normal ” cycle?……
    what a kink in the models eah?
    Car 54 where are you?
    looks like links/ paper is legit … no typo’s ether.
    Michael Ronanye looks like you found something NOT for public consumption.
    This thread could get zapped.. so save it to HD. LOL
    humm………

  85. It’s obvious that the only way to save ourselves and the planet now is to launch all our worldly goods into the sun and return to the “good old days” of serfdom, famine due to controllable pests, death from preventable and curable diseases or exposure to the elements, etc…

  86. Roger Carr (21:14:48) :
    Al Fin (20:30:21) wrote: “Pity the poor southern hemispherians and their impending winter.”
    Save your pity, Al. In Victoria, Australia, I’m sweating on it. The current restricted global warming here is sending me loco. Let it winter hard as it wants, I’ll be like Scrooge McDuck in his money pile… although I acknowledge winter here does not mean ice.

    I just purchased a metric tonne of wood for the open fire and I’m expecting a sharp, cold winter with an excellent skiing season on the victorian alps.
    (-ve PDO, low solar output, indetectable CO2 forcing for warming, etc…)

  87. OT.
    Just a question.
    If the last centure had an average temperature rise of 0.7 degrees Celsius.
    Does that mean that we could calibrate the UHI effect by performing the following test.
    [1] Gather data for monitoring sites that are only in cities. (Exclude Rural sites)
    [2] For each site, subtract 0.7 from the measured warming.
    [3] Repeat for a period from 1900 to approx 1990 (or whenever it was) to match up with the sudden large station drop outs.
    One would think that the temperture rise in the cities should still be +ve if UHI is a factor?
    Is this reasonable, if reasonable, has someone already done this.
    Thanks

  88. Graeme Rodaughan (22:08:25) wrote: “…cold winter with an excellent skiing season on the victorian alps.”
    When did we in Australia begin calling our high country “alps”, Graeme? It is used right through the weather news and in many other places, and is beginning to annoy me. At least (for example) when America wanted another York they had the decency to to put “new” in front of it.
    Do we Aussies really need a “New Alps” to hide the simplicity of the old high country, ranges, mountains terms?

  89. I guess they peer-review their headlines about as stringently as they do their historic data.

  90. Pamela Gray (19:57:36) :
    “It’s epidemic I say! Lost sea ice. Lost satellite! Lost Global Warming. Now we have lost a Sun cycle! Where are my keys!?!?!?!?!”
    I think the cat in the “Gravity” article ate them

  91. skeptic (11:18:35) :
    What happened skeptic? Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? Did little Tommy steal your dump truck?
    If the content here does nothing to stimulate your obviously superior intellect than Troll off and read your IPCC Bible or something…

  92. Al Fin
    Pity us indeed! Nine days to the autumn equinox down here in New Zealand, but a month a go someone flicked the switch early. Not too sure if we have skipped a solar cycle or not, but a lot of people around here think that we have skipped autumn and gone straight to winter.
    The southern part of the country had snow down to 600m (1800 ft) the other day. Not totally unheard of for March (think September) but not common either.
    Watch this space. We’ll keep you posted.

  93. Al Fin (20:30:21) wrote: “Pity the poor southern hemispherians and their impending winter.”
    Just a bit less than two weeks into autumn and I drove through slush and flying snow to get to work in southern NZ. Admittedly at 500 feet or so. This may not be unprecedented, but it’s certainly very unusual. Such conditions usually do not occur before June at the earliest, often not until July. I think we were forecast an Indian summer. It’s been cold and wet (and windy) since early February. Just weather.

  94. David Archibald (19:54:53) :
    The F 10.7 flux was 71 recently, now 69. Is 68 possible? Or all the way back to 65?
    The minimum is not necessarily in yet. The rise over the last six months may have been largely orbital.

    Indeed, David. I am watching this like a hawk. I have waited for almost a year to see this play out. I detect a breakover forming, and the matching one from 2008. There is a lag of 6 weeks after perihelion. Mid February.
    There are plenty of possible explanations, but one of them might be the the direction the sun takes through the galaxy. Bow shock effect. Drag on the bullet (Sun). Solar Orbital effect.

  95. realitycheck (12:12:09) :
    An honest mistake in the normally strictly QC’d output from NASA
    Nothing to see here, move along, move along…

    Feet? Meters? Mars? CRASH. “Strictly QC’d” nothing to see… move along…
    Frozen rubber seals? Need to launch… nothing to bury… move along…
    Computer code that is really really lousy (GIStemp) and won’t run as shipped … “Strictly QC’d” move along…
    CO2 satellite (CRASH!) nothing to see, up in smoke …
    I’ll stop now. At a $billion or two a pop this could add up to real money.

  96. as a member of the peanut gallery:
    applause: E.M.Smith (04:37:59)
    And: Catania (sun spot), Mauna Loa, NSIDC and others honest mistake

  97. Mr Watts,
    You Sir, are a gentleman & a scholar. I thought you were very restrained *& polite despite the obvious & clearly aggressive tone shown by Skecptic. I must be getting too old now I am 51, I saw that diatribe coming him from & or her immediately. Just new it. Well done! Keep up the excellent work.
    Squidly;-) I second that too, well said Sir
    BTW more doom & gloom from the BBC today, it really is getting boring now. The nearer an idea comes to an end the more the porponts scream & shout the end of the world is nigh! I wish the sea level would make up its mind, it seems to rise up, at first very slowly, then quite quickly, then stabilizes, all over about 6 hours, then it starts falling at a simlar rate that at which it rose, back to where it started from, beats me! (Yes I am joking as I do have an Advanced Powerboat Certificate (Ribs) from the RYA!)

  98. Sorry about the typos, please let’s not have a debate on it, I am too frightend of Skeptic! He he!

  99. BTW, at least after having called them on the persistent style points; The Trolls have shifted to a slightly different fake persona / profile… The language style still needs work (still too similar to pass for a novel person) and still a bit thin on “personifying details” but at least it isn’t the same old stereotype.
    Note To Trolls: Please take an acting class, preferably at the college level, where you must create and maintain a “character” complete with history. It will improve your presentation greatly (and be more amusing to watch too…) Oh, and an English Lit class where you must create a character and have them conduct dialog in a character appropriate style / slang / accent would help too.
    As it stands now the name keeps changing and the mind-print stays the same (even if occasionally thinly veiled with an overacted cover story). Boring!

  100. Speaking of AGW proponents, I would like to nominate Mary Hinge for “WUWT’s Favorite Warmer Award”. She/he definitely helps to keep things interesting here, but his/her pure doggedness and willingness to listen puts her/him over the top in my opinion. Now if she/he would only come out of the closet and reveal her/his true identity, she/he would be perfect in every way.
    Mike

  101. Ray:
    These cycle 23 spots have lasted longer than 24 hours… solar data shows that most have lasted at least 48 hours…
    I don’t really see any sense in measuring that… the current method is fine , although we should actually be counting the spots using the exact same methods done 150 years ago, to make it fair. In that case we would have a much greater spotless streak!

  102. Robert Wood (09:29:32) :
    I expect Leif will respond to Scaffeta’s paper.
    I’m at my day-job the next two days so don’t have much time. In the conclusion of the Scafetta paper they say that the Krivova 2007 reconstruction doesn’t match TSI outside of the ACRIM gap, yet they use it to justify their TSI values across the gap. Too much sleight of hand for my taste.
    About cosmic rays and their trend: different stations show slightly different trends [for many reasons], so never just look at ONE station only. Here is Thule: http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png
    and in real time: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/thule.html

  103. Hey Skeptic, as you’ve no doubt realised you’re not part of the demographic here, but I salute you for speaking up… The modus operandi seems to be “proof” via weather anecdotes, faulty logic, misrepresentation of opponents and political sour grapes. This feeds the appetites of an uncritical group of self-identified “skeptics”. Witness the comments here about something as simple as NASA relabeling a sunspot cycle.
    I’ve found it particularly comical watching “Steven Goddard” demonstrate his ignorance of geology while claiming a “B.S.” in the field as I have a B.Sc. in that subject.
    I follow this web-site with Edmund Burke’s quote in mind: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The statements here aren’t evil-with-a-big-E but someone has to call them on their endlessly recycled whoppers. Of course if you really hit a tender spot you’ll simply be “snipped”. Very passive-aggressive…

  104. Re: “Predictions” and “predications”
    Good catch.
    The misspellings are part of the broader (and deeper) problem of off-the-cuff commentary in which we’re all now engaged. I don’t think it’s knitpicking to hold people accountable for their errors. In for our national space agency to misplace a solar cycle, NASA deserves a serious “razzie” if such awards are still being handed out.
    These mistakes are reminders how the internet breeds and then memorializes hasty judgement and hastily-written commentary (by visitors as well as proprietors of web sites) with sometimes funny results.
    Nothing really excuses the Wall Street Journal. They’ve been struggling with the difference between “million” and “billion” in at least two articles I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It’s ironic that a daily newspaper covering economic and business news can be off by three zeroes.
    My final razzie goes to “Marketwatch”, an online business publication with follow-on blog-commentary by readers. The headline read:
    Fed will take away the punch bowl next time
    Commentary: Bernanke proposes paradigm shift in bank regulation

    The lead sentence was the problem:
    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — In the middle of the worst hangover since the Depression, Ben Bernanke said Tuesday the Fed will take the punch bowl away if the next party gets too wild…
    Makes you wonder what kind of profligate Ben Bernanke is, to suffer so many hangovers.
    Hastily-written words – the grammatical and spelling stuff, and the odd(ly) misplaced modifier – are usually just funny. Hasty thoughts can be tolerated. Hasty actions, such as those now being contemplated by Congress http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123679042118496965.html are to be feared.

  105. Alex (07:51:19) :
    I know that if we want to compare apples to apples we should use the same “resolution” than that used in the past. I mentioned that a few times in the past. But it would also be good to develop new tools (physical or mathematical) to find a parameter that could be more significant as to how the sun works.
    I would think that the size and lifetime of sunspots should be proportional to the strength an/or “swelling” of the magnetic field. It’s a suggestion.

  106. Ben Lawson (08:20:13) :
    “Witness the comments here about something as simple as NASA relabeling a sunspot cycle.”
    Your opinions on the people who comment on this blog are yours – you are free to make them.
    By itself this “cycle 24 vs. cycle 23” is for sure NOT that interesting. I think the point of this particular article (the large mammoth with flashing lights, bells and whistles in the room that you apparently missed) is that, taken in context, this adds to a l-o-n-g string of whoppers by NASA which puts them in a very questionable light when it comes to determining the quality of any data they put out.
    We spotted a very obvious and trivial typo here. How many less obvious typos and data errors reach the media and “peer-reviewed” journals and are treated as fact? That is the glaringly obvious point here.
    A cherry-picked snapshot will tell you nothing about this blog – much in the same way as a 100 yr biased temperature record will tell you nothing about climate…

  107. Ray (09:04:26) :
    Yes, those virtual particles can cause all sorts of problems. Shame that the detail is not published, because that summary says nothing good to me. More data-mining?

  108. Wasn’t there a reversed polarity spot recently in the cycle 23 zone that they called a cycle 23 spot. Maybe it was really a cycle 24 spot in last gasp position. Maybe spots with random polarity and location will start appearing evey so often. We may have fallen out of a stable cyclical region into a chaotic one.

  109. Ray (09:04:26) :
    Anthony, did you listen to Dr. Corbyn’s talk about SLAM & VIPH? Some details are on the CO2 sceptic website: http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=2977
    Can’t wait to get Leif’s take on this very important breakthrough.

    I’m at a meeting, so can’t comment extensively, but my first impression is that this is poor, and the presentation uses many of the standard tricks for convincing the unwashed masses rather than good science, like omitting data [slide 10], like averaging over long intervals [slide 11] reducing the number of data points [if he had considered double 22-year cycles, he would have been down to two data points with perfect correlation], like stacking data that tends to give the visual impression of a peak where there is none [slide 27], like using slightly wrong but suggestive terminology [solar particles – in the press release even elevated to ‘charged particles’ – all particles in the solar wind are charged] and ‘solar particles’ are normally used in connection with ‘solar energetic particles’ which are rare events, like not knowing about the 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity [that runs from max to max] due to geometric aspects of the Earth and not a more energetic Sun, and on and on and on. Not worth spending much time on.

  110. Wow, thanks Leif for this quick analysis and for your time to respond.
    Do you really think that the 22 year cycle always been a constant in the history of our sun? What about the fact that the moon was closer to the earth in past times, how does that fit with his theory?

  111. I dislike when someone comes here like Ben Lawson, hurls a couple of unfounded insults and gets me distracted from thinking and enjoying.
    This was a humor post on a very funny and obvious mistake that led to comments about skipping cycles, a pregnant sun and various pretty darn funny stuff.
    Your claiming, without evidence, that someone is “ignorant of geology” doesn’t make it so.
    In case you are clueless you may want to investigate the “demographic” here that you pretend to know. It appears to be a wide variety of veteran physical scientists. Your claimed B.Sc. would not put you on the expert end here. The folks who can publish their name here are generally people with pretty solid credentials so far as I can tell, and I have checked out a number of them.
    Because climate change has become a political football we do sometimes get sidetracked, I will give the critics that.

  112. Ray (12:10:27) :
    Do you really think that the 22 year cycle always been a constant in the history of our sun? What about the fact that the moon was closer to the earth in past times, how does that fit with his theory?
    ‘past times’ is a bit slippery if we want to compare with modern times. Billions of years ago the Moon was MUCH closer, and the Sun was MUCH more active. The 22-year cycle has always been there, but its length has almost certainly varied from what it was billions of years ago [it was likely shorter then].
    Corbyn doesn’t have a ‘theory’ in any scientific sense, just some loose speculation supported by clever presentation, but not by the facts.

  113. Al Fin (20:30:21)
    Please forgive me for “skeptic.” We forgot to lock the door of the asylum after visitor’s hours. He must have snuck out for a night of trolling. So sorry.
    That’s ok Al, no real harm done. In the future, though, please be more careful.
    Funny how he sneaked in incognito-like, thinking his “skeptic” name would disguise what he was – a kamikaze troll on a mission. Hopefully, he’s safely back in his Cuckoo’s Nest.

  114. Ron de Haan (13:20:45) :
    Scafetta and Willson use the KBS07 data the justify their interpretation of the ‘ACRIM-gap’ TSI, then in their conclusion confesses that:
    “[23] On a decadal scale, outside the ACRIM-gap period, KBS07 fails to reproduce the satellite data pattern and trend.”
    So, it seems to me that it is does not make much sense to use KBS07 to justify the data during the ACRIM-gap.

  115. Wondering Aloud: “I dislike when someone comes here”… …”hurls a couple of unfounded insults and gets me distracted from thinking and enjoying.” Sorry to disturb your self-satisfaction, but I stand by my opinion of the discourse here. The rants that have flowed from this “humor piece” are just a handy example of the “critical thought”. No cherry-picking required.
    I claim no direct expertise in the field of climate change but when I can spot the faulty logic and misleading data so readily, I know the claimed “science” is working backwards and just hoping to avoid examination (and maybe that readers won’t bother to follow the comments). I can roll my eyes and move on, or I can call it out.
    Steven Goddard’s geological knowledge has been revealed as wanting in other posts here and his real credentials are still not known. There are authors here with credible qualifications, as often as not they’ve come here to try and explain a concept or fact to their critics and are hit with a barrage of hostile comments.

  116. Ben Lawson (08:20:13) : Of course if you really hit a tender spot you’ll simply be “snipped”. Very passive-aggressive…
    That’s a hoot! All that gets “snipped” here is insult and bad language as near as I can tell (and yes, I got snipped once for casting aspersions of too strong a sort at the character of Hansen and friends after shoving my brains through GIStemp and recoiling in horror at how bad GIStemp is.)
    There is nothing passive-aggressive about the moderators here. They are equal opportunity enforcers of polite decorum no matter whom, or which side, steps “over the line”. If you got snipped, you deserved it.
    I have seen no suppression of any politely presented arguments pro or con AGW, so just clean up your act and you’ll be fine…

  117. Ben Lawson (08:20:13) :
    Of course if you really hit a tender spot you’ll simply be “snipped”. Very passive-aggressive…
    For the record, this is a gross misrepresentation of the moderating style on this site, unless by “hitting a tender spot,” Mr. Lawson means vulgarity, ad hominems, calls to violence etc. I have never in several months of reading almost daily here, seen any evidence that points of substance in real arguments were clipped by moderators. Perhaps Mr. Lawson is confused about the difference….
    -psi

  118. Leif says:

    Billions of years ago the Moon was MUCH closer, and the Sun was MUCH more active.

    While I agree with the moon being much closer, I thought that the TSI has increased over billions of years, but that it amounts to an insignificant increase over decades, centuries and even millenia … was I wrong?

  119. Richard Sharpe (15:12:34) :
    While I agree with the moon being much closer, I thought that the TSI has increased over billions of years, but that it amounts to an insignificant increase over decades, centuries and even millenia … was I wrong?
    No, but Corbyn was not talking TSI, but solar wind and magnetic fields and they were much stronger.

  120. Leif Svalgaard (13:44:20) :
    Ron de Haan (13:20:45) :
    “Scafetta and Willson use the KBS07 data the justify their interpretation of the ‘ACRIM-gap’ TSI, then in their conclusion confesses that:
    “[23] On a decadal scale, outside the ACRIM-gap period, KBS07 fails to reproduce the satellite data pattern and trend.”
    “So, it seems to me that it is does not make much sense to use KBS07 to justify the data during the ACRIM-gap”.
    Thanks Leif.
    I’ve put the article in the bin and trashed it.

  121. Apart of sun´s “pregnacy, and funny issues, it seems that NASA has adopted the new numbering of cycles after Usokin:
    “This cycle,
    numbered as #4’, started in 1793, reached its
    maximum in 1795 and ended in 1799-1800.”

    Then 4´becomes the new 5th. cycle and 23rd. becomes the 24th.

  122. Mike Bryant (05:57:00) :
    Speaking of AGW proponents, I would like to nominate Mary Hinge for “WUWT’s Favorite Warmer Award”. She/he definitely helps to keep things interesting here, but his/her pure doggedness and willingness to listen puts her/him over the top in my opinion. Now if she/he would only come out of the closet and reveal her/his true identity, she/he would be perfect in every way.
    Mike

    I would vote for her too – except that she once referred to me as belonging to “..ilk.” Sniff.. Sniff… I’ve never gotten over it…

  123. Adolfo Giurfa (10:30:40) :
    This is what NASA says (in the posted link above):
    “Causes – Solar output
    Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
    Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
    Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
    Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23;
    Effectively no sunspots;
    The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
    Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
    Consequences
    With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
    Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
    Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.”
    That’s a good summary of where we are at.
    I have a new paper at http://climatechange1.wordpress
    Implications of low solar activity are as follows:
    The strength of the polar vortex depends upon the absolute density of the atmosphere above the pole.
    When the sun is quiet the paucity of short wave radiation enables the atmosphere to contract. In this condition it is little affected by the solar wind because the wind needs particles with an unbalanced electrical charge (ions) to work with.
    When the atmosphere above the pole is dense and compact the Polar vortex is strong.
    The Polar vortex brings compounds of nitrogen from the mesosphere that directly erodes ozone from the stratosphere.
    The mixing of mesospheric air with stratospheric air is observed between the pole and 40° latitude.
    The fall in the ozone content also occurs in the interaction zone between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The temperature of the air varies directly with its ozone content.
    The fall in temperature in the upper troposphere is associated with increased density of ice cloud and greater reflection of the suns rays. Less reaches the surface.
    This fall in the ozone content of the upper troposphere is also associated with a strengthening of the mid latitude pressure cells that drive the trade winds and the westerlies.
    In other words, persistent La Nina tendencies.
    Between 1978 and 2005 we had persistent El Nino tendencies. So, this is a big change.
    “Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity” is associated with sea surface warming at lower mid latitudes in the southern hemisphere where the high pressure cells traverse from west to east. But at the moment its episodic and it seems to be in phase with that geomagnetic activity.

  124. E.M.Smith: “I have seen no suppression of any politely presented arguments pro or con AGW, so just clean up your act and you’ll be fine…” How, exactly, do you expect to see suppressed arguments unless you’ve tried to present them? My comments have always been civil and on-topic, but have been “moderated” in important ways on occasion.
    psi: “this is a gross misrepresentation of the moderating style on this site, unless by “hitting a tender spot,” Mr. Lawson means vulgarity, ad hominems, calls to violence etc.” Plenty of that stuff seems to get through just fine, including ~snip~

  125. I notice that Ben Lawson is still unable to produce any example of the supposed faulty logic and misleading data. As he also doesn’t yet seem to realize that this was a humor piece his problems may bebeyond anything we can treat.

  126. Perhaps NASA just needs to add error bars:
    solar cycle 24 +-2, should do it.
    Re Mary Hinge, I wonder if her/his fans have heard of Spooner, that famous shaft of wit.

  127. erlhapp:
    It goes far from my grasp but it looks that all pieces are coming together, finally, and what it is more interesting, and again only intuitively, is that we are looking at something like an “earth dynamo” in action. (?)

  128. Leif,
    Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago.
    Thank you in anticipation.

  129. Well, I’m not quite sure what this is all about over here. Is it about a physical phenomenon or about something else? After all, folks, let’s appreciate the fact that the mighty star we depend on brought us to life.
    Have a nice weekend!

  130. Ben Lawson (21:41:36) : How, exactly, do you expect to see suppressed arguments unless you’ve tried to present them?
    Well, the moderators insert this little marker “snip” when they take something out or they replace the whole text with a request to rephrase it. It’s really pretty simple to see where they “snipped”. Now I suppose if something was particularly bad they could just delete it silently, but I’ve seen nothing to support that belief. (i.e. no one saying “what happened to foo” or a response to something that did get through, then got deleted or, well, lets just say their isn’t much that a trained computer security forensics guy, me, has seen to show any evidence…)
    I have noticed the occasional ‘black hole’ behavior with some of my postings. After starting a wordpress blog I found out why. It’s supplies its own spam filter (with some small ability to add things to the ‘rules’). Those postings go to the SPAM queue that gets looked at separately and so can sit for a while. Sometimes a long while. The one that kept catching me was ‘number of embedded links’ in a posting. So it may just be that you put a half dozen “See THIS” links in and end up with wordpress putting it into the spam queue. Nothing to do with the moderators (other than how often they dump the spam queue…) I think the default limit was 3 when I started my site. More than that takes manual intervention of some sort to allow it or to get a posting out of the SPAM queue.
    They can add a word list (I put a few particularly offensive curse words in my filter) and change the link threshold, but not much more than that (at least on the free version I got).
    So if you posted something and didn’t even get an “awaiting moderation” notice – just “gone”, it got SPAM queued by wordpress (and may come back from the SPAM queue if the moderator does extra work to go fishing for it). If you did get the “awaiting moderation” banner, then it got snipped, that was moderation.

  131. Who is in charge at NASA? Can’t someone fire these clowns (Hansen and Hathaway)?
    Nasa should clean house of these Political “scientists”.

  132. Leif,
    Thank you for your reply.
    You have not provided any evidence for the questions I asked.
    They are just theories.
    Is there any evidence you can give me.
    Thank you once again.

  133. mark hobart (21:34:20) :
    You have not provided any evidence for the questions I asked.
    They are just theories. Is there any evidence you can give me.

    I don’t think you understand what scientific evidence is, or what a ‘theory’ is. A scientific theory, like the ‘theory of relativity’ or the ‘theory of evolution’, is a synthesis [in words or mathematical symbols] that encompasses a very large body of facts, or explains a large amount of observations. The solar wind and solar rotation is a good example. We can measure the rotation of many stars and their age and find invariably that young stars rotate fast, while old stars [as the Sun] rotate slowly. We can calculate from physical laws verified by laboratory experiments how much the solar wind slows down a star with age and we find that a very strong wind is needed in the youth of the star to explain its slow-down. We also know that solar activity in the end is produced by solar rotation and that therefore a fast rotating Sun will have a strong solar wind. Putting all these things together we get the picture of the formation of the solar system that I referred you to.

  134. Leif,
    “a very large body of facts, or explains a large amount of observations”
    Yes. Please give evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago.
    You have not done so.
    I do not think that you have any.
    I want obsevable facts . Not speculation.
    And please, no arguments from authority. Thay are distractions to the free exchange of information.
    Thank you

  135. mark hobart (23:48:31) :
    I do not think that you have any.
    Let’s do this slowly and methodically: The Moon raises tides in the oceans and in the solid surface of the Earth.

  136. Mark Hobart
    You should read about Descartes “evil genius” and then try to move forward a little with your philosophy on proof etc.
    Do you expect Leif to send you a photograph of the sun and the moon closer to the earth, together with the visible end of a tape measure, and the masthead of the new york times for that day billions of years ago?

  137. Leif Svalgaard (05:38:23) :
    mark hobart (23:48:31) :
    I do not think that you have any.
    Let’s do this slowly and methodically: The Moon raises tides in the oceans and in the solid surface of the Earth.

    I am trying to use the Socratic method to make you understand the issue, so please reward my effort with a response: do we agree on the above statement about the Moon?

  138. Leif,
    We know the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 4cm per year. This is an observed fact which I do not question. However, as I understand it, we do not know how or when the moon formed or appeared in orbit about earth.
    My question again. “Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago?”
    As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.
    Thank you once again.

  139. mark hobart (14:56:00) :
    We know the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 4cm per year. This is an observed fact which I do not question. However, as I understand it, we do not know how or when the moon formed or appeared in orbit about earth.
    You did not answer my question. But I will assume that the answer is ‘yes’. If not, we back up a bit. Because of the tide there is friction and the Earth is slowed down by the tide. Agree?
    My question again. “Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago?”
    We’ll come to this in due time.
    As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.
    Thank you once again.

  140. mark hobart (14:56:00) :
    “We know the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 4cm per year. This is an observed fact which I do not question. However, as I understand it, we do not know how or when the moon formed or appeared in orbit about earth.”
    You did not answer my question. But I will assume that the answer is ‘yes’. If not, we back up a bit. Because of the tide there is friction and the Earth is slowed down by the tide. Agree?

    If so, [otherwise we back up a bit], as we go back in time, the Moon was 4 cm closer per year and the Earth was rotating faster. As the Moon was closer in the past, the tides were bigger and the friction larger, so the slow-down of the Earth and the speed-up of the Moon [because of conserved angular momentum] and hence the rate at which it moves away would be bigger. Agree?
    If so, [otherwise we back up a bit], as we go further back in time the Moon was more than 4 cm closer per year. At the 4-cm/year rate the distance to the Earth [386400 km] is covered in 10 billion years, but as the rate was higher in the past it is easy to calculate that it only takes about 4 billion years for the Moon to be on top of the Earth, agree so far?
    The Apollo astronauts brought moon rocks back. We can date rocks accurately and they are indeed 4 billion years old. So the moon was MUCH closer to the Earth, billions of years ago. Agree?
    If so, there you have your evidence, that you yourself have concluded.
    As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.
    If you agreed so far, we can on to the Sun, but let us first get some feedback as how far you actually agree…

  141. Leif,
    If the moon is closer than a certain distance to the earth (there is a name for this distance, which I’m sorry, I can’t remember) It is broken up by the earth’s gravity, like Saturn’s rings. This would argue against your theory would it not? Also I think there are some who would disagree with your calculations and put the adjacency of the moon to earth closer to 1 billion years. (The rate of increase is proportional to the inverse of the 6th power of the distance)
    However this is all speculation and it seems the the only hard data is the gradual movement of the moon away from the earth, unless you have anything else.
    Thanks again.

  142. Mark Hobart (18:17:54) :
    If the moon is closer than a certain distance to the earth (there is a name for this distance, which I’m sorry, I can’t remember) It is broken up by the earth’s gravity, like Saturn’s rings. This would argue against your theory would it not?
    It is called the Roche distance and it is very close to the Earth [just like Saturn’s rings are to Saturn]. And the Moon was in fact broken into many, many pieces, as was probably the Earth as well, both completely shattered by an impact of a Mars-sized planet. Eventually the Moon [and the Earth reassembled – outside of the Roche distance]. What ever you think of the theory there seems to be general agreement that the Moon was MUCH closer billions of years ago as I said.
    For the Sun, the situation is, of course different. We can today directly see sun-like stars form and measure their rotation rate [which is much faster than that of old Sol] and magnetic fields, so we know that they have a MUCH stronger stellar wind and magnetic field. As I already explained, a strong and magnetic solar wind is the only thing that can slow the Sun’s rotation, so we know that the sun had such a wind and field.
    Now, there much be a reason [or an agenda] why you are so skeptical [and hence ignorant] of this. Care to tell us what it is?

  143. Leif,
    Let’s get back to my original question.
    “Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago.
    Thank you in anticipation.”
    Your answers:
    1. Moon: “What ever you think of the theory there seems to be general agreement that the Moon was MUCH closer billions of years ago as I said.”
    2. Sun: ” We can today directly see sun-like stars form and measure their rotation rate [which is much faster than that of old Sol] and magnetic fields, so we know that they have a MUCH stronger stellar wind and magnetic field”
    Is that all the evidence you have in answer to my question?
    I don’t want to seem disrespectful but I was hoping for something more tangible than mere speculation
    To answer your last question, I am after the truth. And, just because someone says they are a “scientist” and therefore should be respected is not enough for me. There are many examples of bigoted scientsts refusing to question their dogma which hides under the guise of “science”. I question everything and so should you.

  144. mark hobart (20:22:43) :
    Is that all the evidence you have in answer to my question?
    I don’t want to seem disrespectful but I was hoping for something more tangible than mere speculation

    Well, I have done what I could. You decide to remain in the dark and so shall it be.

  145. Anthony
    Please don’t ban “skeptic” for having different views from most on your blog. If you do you will be no different from Gavin Schmidt and cronies at RealClimate. I’ve been banned from that blog as I criticised the unseemly way all there reject anyone that suggests and anything that indicates, the science underpinnng AGW may very well not be settled. This blog is, naturally, akin to my own views which are that there is a hell of a lot of stuff clearly suggesting AGW is a dodgy concept, stuff that the AGW proponents don’t analyse rationally but just dimiss abitrarily. Skeptic seems a definite AGW believer but he/she should be able to argue their side without fear or favour.

  146. Hey Leif,
    I know I’m late to yet another wall of text, but in case you are reading this you’re to be commended for your continued patience in educating the public on solar science.
    Were I in your shoes I’d disclaim with a tag line: “It’s not TSI, it’s not UV and any solar effect has years of cumulative lag. If we’re going to research the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nuclei, please don’t expect instant correlations. And anybody who mentions solar-planetary barycenters will be ignominiously plonked.”
    Cheers! — leebert

Comments are closed.